Today, medical educators are under considerable societal pressure and budgetary constraints to enhance the quality of medical education. Traditional “learning by doing” models have become less acceptable, particularly where invasive procedures and high-risk care are required.
Traditionally, medical education and procedural training have been delivered via live lectures, text-based learning, bedside teaching, and patient simulation models (e.g., cadavers or electronic patient simulators). Bedside teaching has been widely acclaimed as one of the most effective medical teaching techniques. Bedside procedural training often follows the traditional “see one, do one, teach one” philosophy. However, while such medical training provides trainees with valuable “hands-on” experience, this type of training by its nature requires that care providers without prior procedural training develop their skills by performing procedures for the first time on actual patients. Given that many medical procedures not only are challenging to perform, but also, if performed improperly, can pose significant risks to patient health and safety, such conventional “see one, do one, teach one” training is not always a preferred method of training.
One exemplary medical procedure for which traditional “see one, do one, teach one” training is not always favored is subclavian central venous line (CVL) placement. CVL placement is a commonly performed intervention in critically ill patients having limited peripheral venous access. Complications of this procedure can potentially include misplacement of the line, a collapsed lung or hemorrhage, and statistics show that such complications can occur in between 4 to 15 percent of patients having this procedure. It is commonly regarded that there is a direct link between the complications associated with CVL placement and the number of lines previously placed by the medical professional. Thus, while it is desirable that medical professionals performing CVL placements be highly experienced in performing the technique, it is not particularly desirable that medical professionals develop their experience by performing the procedure on actual patients.
For these reasons, medical professionals are increasingly being taught by way of alternative training methodologies. Such alternative training methodologies include web-based education, high-fidelity human patient simulation and virtual reality (VR). VR training methodologies in particular are advantageous for several reasons. VR enables humans to directly interact with computers in computer-generated environments that simulate our physical world. VR systems vary in their level of realism and their level of user immersion into the real world. VR enables students to study and learn from virtual scenarios in a manner that does not involve any risk to patients or involve the depletion of resources that might otherwise be reused. However, VR systems are often costly items prohibiting wide scale use in the medical training arena.
Although advantageous in many respects, conventional VR training methodologies are still lacking in certain regards. To begin with, conventional VR training methodologies have not integrated multiple simulated conventional medical technologies along with textbook style learning. VR systems have not integrated motion sensor technology interconnected with digital video, 3-D modeling, and force-feedback devices based on a single PC platform and cost effective for widespread use. Conventional VR training methodologies are often cost prohibitive for use by entities with many students or trainees. High costs have prevented the widespread use of VR technologies for medical education and training.
In view of these inadequacies of conventional VR training methodologies, it would be advantageous if a new, improved system and/or method of VR training was developed. In at least some embodiments, it would be advantageous if such improved VR training system/method were capable of integrating emerging technologies along with more traditional methods of medical learning such as “see one, do one, teach one” training. Also, in at least some embodiments, it would be advantageous if such improved VR training system/method was capable of integrating emerging technologies with conventional medical sensing, testing, and/or imaging devices. Further, in at least some embodiments, it would be advantageous if such improved VR training system/method were PC-based and cost effective.